Health and Human Flourishing: Religion, Medicine, and Moral Anthropology

14 Science and a Theological Anthropology

c h a p t e r c h a p t e r 14 Science and a Theological Anthropology Kevin T. FitzGerald, S.J. Like scientific investigation, theological-anthropological reflection is an ongoing activity—one that must be engaged in active reflection upon and interaction with the findings of the natural sciences. Certainly, our understanding of human anatomy and physiology, human development, biochemistry , genetics, psychology—in short, every aspect of human nature that has been examined and investigated by the natural sciences—has changed radically over the course of history, particularly over the past several decades. Scientific investigation and biotechnical innovation will undoubtedly bring with them new challenges to our conceptions of human nature, human flourishing, and theological anthropology. Recently, the president’s council on bioethics (2003) and the National Science Foundation et al. (2004) have brought to our attention the variety of ways in which biotechnology may come to bear on human life in the near future and thereby the variety of questions that will be raised concerning whether, or how, human life may 242 kevin t. fitzger ald, s.j. be enhanced by biotechnology. We need to discern what science is revealing about our nature and how this revelation might combine with revelation (along with other forms of knowledge) to give us a richer and deeper understanding of how humans thrive and whether, how, or to what extent we are called to go “beyond therapy” or “beyond” human nature. Can We Go Beyond Human Nature? Answering this question completely would require addressing it on many different levels, including the debated issues of whether or not there is such a thing as human nature, and whether consideration of human nature should be included in serious reflection about the uses of technology.1 For the sake of brevity, it can be observed that there have been many responses to these issues from a variety of perspectives, all of which argue for the inclusion of some concept of human nature in this discussion.2 Then, regardless of which concept of human nature one chooses to employ, one still has to determine what exactly technology can do to human beings on a biological level in order to discuss whether or not any of it should be pursued. Fundamentally, one can conclude from the current state of science and technology that almost any level of biological manipulation is possible. In other words, the biological substratum of human beings is open to manipulation from the level of prosthetic devices and artificial organs to the level of proteins, DNA, and molecular biology. Perhaps what is most pertinent to the focus of this chapter is the fact that this manipulation is not limited to interchanging human parts, though this is already clear in the case of prosthetic devices. However, our relative comfort with and support for prostheses as they are used today may not easily translate to the devices and biological interventions of the future. Two examples may help to clarify this point. Heart valves taken from pigs or cows are currently in use to replace damaged human heart valves. This therapeutic intervention currently receives broad support. Because efforts are underway to genetically engineer pigs so that their organs would be less likely to be rejected when transplanted into human beings, one can conclude that there will be similar support for transplanting pig hearts into humans in order to save the lives of people who would otherwise die. If the pigs can provide hearts, though, what would prevent the use of other organs and tissues in humans as needed? Would there be a different reaction to the use of pig neural tissue in the brains of people with neurodegenerative diseases? If all these interventions are to be considered desirable, should we use the genetically engineered pig stem Science and a Theological Anthropology 243 cells to replace and repair damaged tissue, if enough human stem cells are not available—or even human stem cells or tissues grown in pigs, or other mammals, to provide even more compatible tissue? Of course, for the sake of efficiency, one would want a pig with a high percentage of human cells in whatever tissues might be needed. Hence, following this line of reasoning, the optimal therapeutic answer would be a chimeric pig/human, or perhaps a chimp/human. Mammalian chimeras have already been created, such as goat/sheep “geeps,” which are created by fusing a goat embryo with...